GameSpot AU Discussion is a general forum where any and all discussion is welcome as long as it falls within the site's Terms of Use and the rules below:
- Follow the Terms of Use and read the FAQ.
- Keep the discussions work friendly. More details in the FAQ.
- Do NOT post or bump extremely abusive discussions.
- Hate speech not permitted.
Would it be better if there were no political parties?
- Oct 23, 2012 12:05 am GMT
NEW Latest Blog Post - MUSE Live 9.12.10 at Acer Arena, Sydney 2 months on, recollected.
Now Playing: Uncharted 3 | Skyrim | Assassin's Creed Revelations
PSN - CombustionManX
Just a thought that came to my mind while watching Capitol Hill on ABC. In the current political climate I feel that most politicians aren't expressing their true views on issues, only taking a particular stance just to further a hidden agenda of some sort.
What if there were no political parties?
My idea is that instead of parties forming in the parliament everyone would be an independent, no one would be prime minister or opposition leader, no ministers of any kind. The way it would run would be an MP would introduce a policy or an issue to the parliament (the priority of which would be ranked based on the results of an independent poll). It is immediately voted on whether it should be discussed or thrown out immediately, and then, assuming it is passed, discussion on the policy/topic begins.
It would work more like a Q&A episode where instead of the speaker of the house taking a more removed role they control the discussion (to keep it civilised), choosing who gets to speak.
Anyone caught interrupting the person speaking more than 3 times gets thrown out for one week. I feel like this more open discussion format would force everyone to make their own minds on things, and actually discuss the issue at hand instead of immediately taking the stance of their respective party. No one has a hidden agenda or goal (like kicking out the government for example) because there is no higher position or higher level of power they can get. To avoid possibilities of corruption there would be an anti-corruption watchdog to prevent such things from occurring (like actual corruption or secret political parties).
Do you think such a system would work? Would it be better or worse than the current system? This is just an idea, it can be improved.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 12:45 am GMT
No you want it to be like lebanon run by militia or the mafia's? And the figure head is from the army... have a look at their governement model and you will see why this fails.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 1:17 am GMTIf you have no ministers of any kind who is going to be in charge of certain portfolios like Defence and Infrastructure? Do you just leave them to be run by no-one? with no-one accountable for their actions? I dunno i don't think it's a great idea, i find it hard to believe that it would really remove hidden agendas, or that it could be successfully pulled off.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 3:13 pm GMT
I like where you're going but I think a modification to the current format would better achieve your goals and avoid the problems outlined in posts above.
Of course it still won't remove the problem of:
Question : What is your stance on isue X
Answer : My opponents think X and they're wrong because Y
lol
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 5:02 pm GMT
The biggest issue I see is that... this is how our government started. Parties form naturally, due to mutual agendas and what-not, whether they are officially called a party or not
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 5:44 pm GMT
Maybe we should just have heaps of independents run for PM and if elected they get to choose who works for them. I'd run for PM and I'd rock. I wouldn't be wasting time jet setting all over the world, I'd sort out my own backyard first, thats what my foreign minister would be for.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 6:17 pm GMTSo what do you do when all the politicians vote in favour of the "free ice creams every Friday" bill (because ice cream is good), but vote against the bill that would collect the money needed to pay for the ice cream (because taxes are bad)? I think there is some merit in our current system where one party is given control of the budget, and has the responsibility to balance the taxes and spending for a period. If you treat every spending decision as independent, then you could end up with problems like with California's referendums, where their state government is prevented from raising certain taxes but is also required to spend money on certain programs.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 6:55 pm GMT
Need 3 major parties..instead of the current 2 -> idiots.
Tho if all 3 ended up being idiots then we've only ourselves to blame. Need 3 major parties..instead of the current 2 -> idiots. :P Tho if all 3 ended up being idiots then we've only ourselves to blame. :P
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 11:23 pm GMT
Jedi and Sith would do me fine
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 23, 2012 11:35 pm GMTsuperbuuman wrote:Need 3 major parties..instead of the current 2 -> idiots. Tho if all 3 ended up being idiots then we've only ourselves to blame.
So what would stop two of those parties deciding that they had more in common with each other than the other one, and team up to try and beat them (as the Liberals and Nationals have done)?[QUOTE="superbuuman"]Need 3 major parties..instead of the current 2 -> idiots. :P Tho if all 3 ended up being idiots then we've only ourselves to blame. :P[/QUOTE] So what would stop two of those parties deciding that they had more in common with each other than the other one, and team up to try and beat them (as the Liberals and Nationals have done)?- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 12:29 am GMT
When I vote I'm voting for the party not the individual person. I know bugger all really about my local MP But I know the party. The party systems just so much easier and works fine.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 6:34 am GMT
No, it'd be terrible. Almost as terrible as the member for the Greens who is coming up for some Melbourne election soon - I assume you have an election coming up - and her slogan for why you should vote for her. 'Let's Stay Liveable.'
Yep, that's a good idea. No, let's make Melbourne even better! Just, let's stay liveable. That's like saying, I only want vanilla flavoured ice cream for the rest of my life. I mean, I don't mind the Greens, but to say, hey, let's stay liveable is suggesting that they'll get to an acceptable level of unemployment and homelessness and let the city go into a slight decline, but just enough above everybody being in poverty so the city can stay liveable. 'Oh, we don't have any arts festivals, and some mornings you can't go outside and breath the air, but hey, at least I have a house and the city is liveable.'
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 2:48 pm GMT
Lol, let's stay liveable. It's a good goal; not letting the country decline to a condition where we have to leave but, without an apocalyptic event, a goal that hardly seems necessary. Talk about a hit and a miss when trying to sound "down to Earth" or "real" <-- see those talking marks?
I kinda like the way our local council does it's elections. Today's actually the deadline for ballot papers... did I remember to send mine off?
Anyway they don't have party affiliations on the info forms; just a few paragraphs from each selling why we should vote for them and their personal voting preferences. Very interesting the way they write the "bit" that's going to sell them to the public. Some are brim full of bullshi whilst others sound like tyhey were written by my 6 year old kid! Get a great idea about each though.
All that aside, whilst it works well on a local council level, I wouldn't vote the same way federally. Ideally I vote for a party and policies however, I'm ashamed to admit, I won't vote coalition this year because of Tony Abbott. Party policies aside I don't believe Tony is the right man to actually bring anything they promise to fruition... so it fails.
Lol, let's stay liveable. It's a good goal; not letting the country decline to a condition where we have to leave but, without an apocalyptic event, a goal that hardly seems necessary. Talk about a hit and a miss when trying to sound "down to Earth" or "real" <-- see those talking marks?
I kinda like the way our local council does it's elections. Today's actually the deadline for ballot papers... did I remember to send mine off? :)
Anyway they don't have party affiliations on the info forms; just a few paragraphs from each selling why we should vote for them and their personal voting preferences. Very interesting the way they write the "bit" that's going to sell them to the public. Some are brim full of bullshi whilst others sound like tyhey were written by my 6 year old kid! Get a great idea about each though.
All that aside, whilst it works well on a local council level, I wouldn't vote the same way federally. Ideally I vote for a party and policies however, I'm ashamed to admit, I won't vote coalition this year because of Tony Abbott. Party policies aside I don't believe Tony is the right man to actually bring anything they promise to fruition... so it fails.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 5:28 pm GMTThey almost had political parties at our last council election. All the incumbent pro speed hump councillors who were up for reelection lost their seats to anti speed hump candidates.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 7:51 pm GMT
Stuff like ^^^ that makes me, once again, want like or thumbs up buttons for posts.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 10:14 pm GMT[QUOTE="Chickan_117"]Stuff like ^^^ that makes me, once again, want like or thumbs up buttons for posts.[/QUOTE] It was getting a bit ridiculous. On a 400m stretch of Carrington street, there were 2 roundabouts, 2 chicanes and 6 large speed humps. The cemetery made up one side of the road for this stretch, so there was not much reason for pedestrians to want to cross the road (there were no entrances into the cemetery there). The previous council members were dragging their feet, and tried grinding down a few of the humps as a compromise. After the elections, the remaining humps got ground down.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 25, 2012 10:57 pm GMT
Sounds like they still missed those bumpy raised paint thingys they put to warn you an intersections coming!
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 26, 2012 2:33 am GMT
NEW Latest Blog Post - MUSE Live 9.12.10 at Acer Arena, Sydney 2 months on, recollected.
Now Playing: Uncharted 3 | Skyrim | Assassin's Creed Revelations
PSN - CombustionManX
[QUOTE="Chickan_117"]I like where you're going but I think a modification to the current format would better achieve your goals and avoid the problems outlined in posts above.
Of course it still won't remove the problem of:
Question : What is your stance on isue X
Answer : My opponents think X and they're wrong because Y
lol
[/QUOTE] While those problems do still exist it removes the problem of a voter voting for someone just because they've been a hardcore labor/liberal supporter their entire life. Without a party they're forced to look at what their candidates are campaigning for. It also increases public interest in the political system. [QUOTE="phhstom1"]If you have no ministers of any kind who is going to be in charge of certain portfolios like Defence and Infrastructure? Do you just leave them to be run by no-one? with no-one accountable for their actions? I dunno i don't think it's a great idea, i find it hard to believe that it would really remove hidden agendas, or that it could be successfully pulled off.[/QUOTE] Like I said, this is an idea in utero. It's still developing. If you do want ministers we could have it so each elected MP campaigns for any position they feel qualified for (still no Prime Minister though). They present their credentials and argue to the members of the parliament why they're the best for the job, then the parliament votes for each individual position. It'd take some time but it'd be worth it. As a minister they would present their bills to the parliament and get them passed like anyone else, just that the main job of each minister is to make bills specific to their department.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 26, 2012 4:25 am GMT
Get used to it, kids.
Get used to it, kids.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
